On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 17:55 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 16:31 -0700, Ming Lin wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 23:10 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > Hi Ming & Co, > > > > > > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 10:28 -0700, Ming Lin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 15:38 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Ming Lin <mlin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > These 2 patches added virtio-nvme to kernel and qemu, > > > > > > basically modified from virtio-blk and nvme code. > > > > > > > > > > > > As title said, request for your comments. > > > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > > > > > > > > At first glance it seems like the virtio_nvme guest driver is just > > > > > another block driver like virtio_blk, so I'm not clear why a > > > > > virtio-nvme device makes sense. > > > > > > > > I think the future "LIO NVMe target" only speaks NVMe protocol. > > > > > > > > Nick(CCed), could you correct me if I'm wrong? > > > > > > > > For SCSI stack, we have: > > > > virtio-scsi(guest) > > > > tcm_vhost(or vhost_scsi, host) > > > > LIO-scsi-target > > > > > > > > For NVMe stack, we'll have similar components: > > > > virtio-nvme(guest) > > > > vhost_nvme(host) > > > > LIO-NVMe-target > > > > > > > > > > I think it's more interesting to consider a 'vhost style' driver that > > > can be used with unmodified nvme host OS drivers. > > > > > > Dr. Hannes (CC'ed) had done something like this for megasas a few years > > > back using specialized QEMU emulation + eventfd based LIO fabric driver, > > > and got it working with Linux + MSFT guests. > > > > > > Doing something similar for nvme would (potentially) be on par with > > > current virtio-scsi+vhost-scsi small-block performance for scsi-mq > > > guests, without the extra burden of a new command set specific virtio > > > driver. > > > > Trying to understand it. > > Is it like below? > > > > .------------------------. MMIO .---------------------------------------. > > | Guest |--------> | Qemu | > > | Unmodified NVMe driver |<-------- | NVMe device simulation(eventfd based) | > > '------------------------' '---------------------------------------' > > | ^ > > write NVMe | | notify command > > command | | completion > > to eventfd | | to eventfd > > v | > > .--------------------------------------. > > | Host: | > > | eventfd based LIO NVMe fabric driver | > > '--------------------------------------' > > | > > | nvme_queue_rq() > > v > > .--------------------------------------. > > | NVMe driver | > > '--------------------------------------' > > | > > | > > v > > .-------------------------------------. > > | NVMe device | > > '-------------------------------------' > > > > Correct. The LIO driver on KVM host would be handling some amount of > NVMe host interface emulation in kernel code, and would be able to > decode nvme Read/Write/Flush operations and translate -> submit to > existing backend drivers. Let me call the "eventfd based LIO NVMe fabric driver" as "tcm_eventfd_nvme" Currently, LIO frontend driver(iscsi, fc, vhost-scsi etc) talk to LIO backend driver(fileio, iblock etc) with SCSI commands. Did you mean the "tcm_eventfd_nvme" driver need to translate NVMe commands to SCSI commands and then submit to backend driver? But I thought the future "LIO NVMe target" can support frontend driver talk to backend driver directly with NVMe commands without translation. Am I wrong? > > As with the nvme-over-fabric case, it would be possible to do a mapping > between backend driver queue resources for real NVMe hardware (eg: > target_core_nvme), but since it would still be doing close to the same > amount of software emulation for both backend driver cases, I wouldn't > expect there to be much performance advantage over just using normal > submit_bio(). > > --nab > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
